"Video has emerged of a woman appearing to shout homophobic abuse at people on a Pride march.
Wearing a black niqab, she can be heard in the footage posted on social media repeatedly shouting "shame on you" at the crowd, including at a man draped in a rainbow LGBT flag.
She can be heard saying: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Shame on you, shame on all of you.""
An American born-again Christian in a niqab? Strange.
You do realise that Adam exists in muslim theology as well?
You think Muslims call his wife Eve????
Apparently she is known in Arabic as "Hawwa" which is clearly cognate with the Hebrew "Hawwah" from which we get "Eve" via Greek "Heua" and Latin "Eva". She is not mentioned by name in the Koran though, according to Wikipedia, only in a Hadith (a saying of the prophet, recorded after his death).
Of course it's cognate with Eve - it refers to the same person. It's not Eve, though.
Right... So when a muslim refers to "God", they don't mean Allah?
Sorry, we're talking about whether "Eve" is the same name as "Hawa" or "Hawwa." It isn't the same name. It's cognate.
No, we were talking about whether or not the protestor was muslim. You seem to think that she was a christian because she used the English form of the name of the first woman in the Abrahamic mythos.
"Video has emerged of a woman appearing to shout homophobic abuse at people on a Pride march.
Wearing a black niqab, she can be heard in the footage posted on social media repeatedly shouting "shame on you" at the crowd, including at a man draped in a rainbow LGBT flag.
She can be heard saying: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Shame on you, shame on all of you.""
An American born-again Christian in a niqab? Strange.
On a slightly more serious note, the Metro quotes a police spokesman as saying: "Abusing someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is a hate crime."
Is that true? I didn't think we'd quite got to that stage.
Yes, if it is done in public. It then becomes a breach of the Public Order Act.
Strangely I looked at precisely that page before I posted. It appears to say that abuse can be a "hate incident," but doesn't list it as a "hate crime."
Edit: It says the Public Order Act outlaws "causing harassment, alarm or distress."
"Video has emerged of a woman appearing to shout homophobic abuse at people on a Pride march.
Wearing a black niqab, she can be heard in the footage posted on social media repeatedly shouting "shame on you" at the crowd, including at a man draped in a rainbow LGBT flag.
She can be heard saying: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Shame on you, shame on all of you.""
An American born-again Christian in a niqab? Strange.
You do realise that Adam exists in muslim theology as well?
You think Muslims call his wife Eve????
Apparently she is known in Arabic as "Hawwa" which is clearly cognate with the Hebrew "Hawwah" from which we get "Eve" via Greek "Heua" and Latin "Eva". She is not mentioned by name in the Koran though, according to Wikipedia, only in a Hadith (a saying of the prophet, recorded after his death).
Of course it's cognate with Eve - it refers to the same person. It's not Eve, though.
Right... So when a muslim refers to "God", they don't mean Allah?
Sorry, we're talking about whether "Eve" is the same name as "Hawa" or "Hawwa." It isn't the same name. It's cognate.
No, we were talking about whether or not the protestor was muslim. You seem to think that she was a christian because she used the English form of the name of the first woman in the Abrahamic mythos.
Not just because she used the English form of the name, but also because she used a slogan coined by the American evangelical movement.
The Slackbladder observed that Adam existed in Muslim tradition too, and I pointed out that Eve didn't.
@Cyclefree, what do you make of Boris's commitment to national infrastructure? I remember you having strong views in this areain discussions below the line.
To be honest, I haven’t followed in detail. So can’t comment on specifics. Sorry. Not avoiding the question. Just don’t feel able to say.
Let's see.
So far we have scrap the HS2 bit that makes sense (on capacity grounds) Build only part of HS3 - the bit between Leeds and Manchester. No mention of heathrow and runways...
Have I missed anything else?
This is all a bit hypothetical if the government doesn't have a majority, doesn't dare hold an election, and faces an existential crisis in 3 months' time.
I think Boris is pre GE campaigning now and appears to be framing a 'who governs Britain' question ready to launch in the Autumn
It amazes me he is being given six weeks unopposed run at it
I would not be surprised to discover that Corbyn has gone on holiday to spend all of August in the Masurian Lakes or some such.
He has made a decision today I believe.
He will not call Boris 'Boris'
I've been hearing people on the Left giving interviews, where they refer to "Johnson" throughout. Brand Boris clearly sticks in their craw - and shows them up for the po-faced joyless souls they are....
Well it is not just people on the Left that don't want to fall for the cozy "Boris" bollox. I prefer BoZo as this is not joyless and sums the silly fat oaf. He is a joke, and history will treat him as such.
"Video has emerged of a woman appearing to shout homophobic abuse at people on a Pride march.
Wearing a black niqab, she can be heard in the footage posted on social media repeatedly shouting "shame on you" at the crowd, including at a man draped in a rainbow LGBT flag.
She can be heard saying: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Shame on you, shame on all of you.""
An American born-again Christian in a niqab? Strange.
On a slightly more serious note, the Metro quotes a police spokesman as saying: "Abusing someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is a hate crime."
Is that true? I didn't think we'd quite got to that stage.
Yes, if it is done in public. It then becomes a breach of the Public Order Act.
Strangely I looked at precisely that page before I posted. It appears to say that abuse can be a "hate incident," but doesn't list it as a "hate crime."
Edit: It says the Public Order Act outlaws "causing harassment, alarm or distress."
What was done would constitute harassment.
Obviously that would be for a court to decide. The point is that abuse isn't illegal. Causing harassment, alarm or distress is illegal.
"Video has emerged of a woman appearing to shout homophobic abuse at people on a Pride march.
Wearing a black niqab, she can be heard in the footage posted on social media repeatedly shouting "shame on you" at the crowd, including at a man draped in a rainbow LGBT flag.
She can be heard saying: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Shame on you, shame on all of you.""
An American born-again Christian in a niqab? Strange.
On a slightly more serious note, the Metro quotes a police spokesman as saying: "Abusing someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is a hate crime."
Is that true? I didn't think we'd quite got to that stage.
Yes, if it is done in public. It then becomes a breach of the Public Order Act.
Strangely I looked at precisely that page before I posted. It appears to say that abuse can be a "hate incident," but doesn't list it as a "hate crime."
Edit: It says the Public Order Act outlaws "causing harassment, alarm or distress."
What was done would constitute harassment.
Obviously that would be for a court to decide. The point is that abuse isn't illegal. Causing harassment, alarm or distress is illegal.
No, abuse is a form of harassment. So I'm not quite sure why you are dodging round this point.
I personally hating dealing with people who treat every negotiation as some sort of game that requires a ‘winner’ rather than a quest for common ground.
It's not even good negotiation practice. The best negotiated outcomes are win/win.
Your gripe should be aimed at the EU.
Youm ean given your failure to renegotiate with the EU and failure to achieve any of the goals Leave set itself post-referendum, we should now blame the EU. "Failing" and "blaming". Hmm. if only somebody had invented a handy three-word phrase for such an approach...
If we had been at this juncture three years ago, you would have had a point.
Three wasted years. Those the words you were thinking of?
I agree with it in all my moments. This is all for show. We will NOT be leaving the European Union on 31 Oct without a Deal. That is a 'not happening' event. I'd bet the farm on it. If I had a farm, I really would. So long as my winnings were paid in hard currency, that is, and not by way of another farm.
@Cyclefree, what do you make of Boris's commitment to national infrastructure? I remember you having strong views in this areain discussions below the line.
To be honest, I haven’t followed in detail. So can’t comment on specifics. Sorry. Not avoiding the question. Just don’t feel able to say.
Let's see.
So far we have scrap the HS2 bit that makes sense (on capacity grounds) Build only part of HS3 - the bit between Leeds and Manchester. No mention of heathrow and runways...
Have I missed anything else?
This is all a bit hypothetical if the government doesn't have a majority, doesn't dare hold an election, and faces an existential crisis in 3 months' time.
I think Boris is pre GE campaigning now and appears to be framing a 'who governs Britain' question ready to launch in the Autumn
It amazes me he is being given six weeks unopposed run at it
I'm still having trouble fitting this idea of an Autumn election into the fabric of reality, now that the House of Commons has risen.
What are people thinking?
(1) Johnson orchestrates a fake vote of no confidence in his own government immediately after the recess (by my reckoning, by 12 September if he wants to have an election on Brexit Day itself, or by 5 September if he wants it a week earlier), allowing Corbyn the chance to form an alternative government, and obviously handing all the levers of government over to Corbyn as well.
(2) Johnson tries to persuade two thirds of the Commons to vote for an election on 10 October or later, the vote being held by 26 September, which in practice dictates much the same timing as in (1), given that the House will be expected to rise again for the conference season in the middle of the month.
(3) Johnson contrives an election after we leave the EU with no deal on 31 October.
All three of those seem to me to be well within the realms of fantasy. Am I missing something?
The Guakeward Squad will have to decide if VoNC is the only way to stop No Deal. The date for that decision has to be before the 5th of September - so that the VoNC is tabled on the 5th. Whether Mr Corbyn agrees with that is another matter.
It is entirely upto Corbyn. Do not hold your breath
Jeremy Corbyn wants Brexit. Preferably a chaotic one the Tories own. Why should he VONC to stop a No Deal Brexit?
@Cyclefree, what do you make of Boris's commitment to national infrastructure? I remember you having strong views in this areain discussions below the line.
To be honest, I haven’t followed in detail. So can’t comment on specifics. Sorry. Not avoiding the question. Just don’t feel able to say.
Let's see.
So far we have scrap the HS2 bit that makes sense (on capacity grounds) Build only part of HS3 - the bit between Leeds and Manchester. No mention of heathrow and runways...
Have I missed anything else?
This is all a bit hypothetical if the government doesn't have a majority, doesn't dare hold an election, and faces an existential crisis in 3 months' time.
I think Boris is pre GE campaigning now and appears to be framing a 'who governs Britain' question ready to launch in the Autumn
It amazes me he is being given six weeks unopposed run at it
I would not be surprised to discover that Corbyn has gone on holiday to spend all of August in the Masurian Lakes or some such.
He has made a decision today I believe.
He will not call Boris 'Boris'
I've been hearing people on the Left giving interviews, where they refer to "Johnson" throughout. Brand Boris clearly sticks in their craw - and shows them up for the po-faced joyless souls they are....
Boris Johnson is not the self-constructed cuddly funster 'Boris' therefore I would prefer to refer to him by his genuine name. Similarly Jeremy Corbyn is devoid of any cuddly funster characteristics so I would prefer to refer to him by a name which is in no way reverential. Corbyn fits the bill.
I think there are other names which fit the bill better, lots of them.
"Video has emerged of a woman appearing to shout homophobic abuse at people on a Pride march.
Wearing a black niqab, she can be heard in the footage posted on social media repeatedly shouting "shame on you" at the crowd, including at a man draped in a rainbow LGBT flag.
She can be heard saying: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Shame on you, shame on all of you.""
An American born-again Christian in a niqab? Strange.
On a slightly more serious note, the Metro quotes a police spokesman as saying: "Abusing someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is a hate crime."
Is that true? I didn't think we'd quite got to that stage.
Yes, if it is done in public. It then becomes a breach of the Public Order Act.
Strangely I looked at precisely that page before I posted. It appears to say that abuse can be a "hate incident," but doesn't list it as a "hate crime."
Edit: It says the Public Order Act outlaws "causing harassment, alarm or distress."
What was done would constitute harassment.
Obviously that would be for a court to decide. The point is that abuse isn't illegal. Causing harassment, alarm or distress is illegal.
No, abuse is a form of harassment. So I'm not quite sure why you are dodging round this point.
I'm not "dodging around" it. I'm asking a question about it.
As I said, the website you linked to classified "abuse" as an incident and "harassment" as a crime, which obviously suggests abuse isn't a form of harassment! But maybe that's wrong.
Do you have a better authority for saying abuse is harassment?
I'm surprised the EU aren't moving faster. You'd think they'd want to get past Brexit and move on to happier things like imposing negative interest rates across the Eurozone.
One year government bond yields are negative for almost every Eurozone country, with the exceptions of Greece and Italy. If you stretch your horizon out to 10 years, you can get an amazing 0.35% per year in Spain, and 0.41% in Portugal.
!!
Do you agree with some of the black swan economists on Twitter who suggest another banking crisis - particularly in Spain and Italy - is looming? And possibly a danger to the Euro?
The Spanish have sorted out their banking sector. They've massively reduced the number of banks, and recapitalised those that remain. There's also been a big wave of deleveraging, and the Spanish economy is no longer dependent on borrowing money to spend on imports. (Indeed, staggeringly, Spain is heading for its sixth annual current account surplus.)
Italy has not sorted out its banking sector. Simply, local savings banks were too politically powerful, and lending to prominent local businessmen was too important. The result is that the Italian banking system is in worse state now than in 2010. The numbers involved are not as overwhelming as they were for Ireland and Spain in the Eurozone crisis - but they are very significant considering the Italian government is not without its own problems.
The other problem Italy has is that if Salvini rocks the boat too much, then wealthy Italians will pull the last of their Euros out of local banks, raising their funding costs and screwing the local economy. (Why risk your assets become Lira 2000, when they could be German Euros?) We see this in Target-2 numbers alreadys.
Will UK nationals continue to get their State Pension uprated under no deal?
The UK leaving the EU will not affect entitlement to continue receiving the UK State Pension if you live in the EU, and we are committed to uprate across the EU in 2019 to 2020. We would wish to continue uprating pensions beyond that but would take decisions in light of whether, as we would hope and expect, reciprocal arrangements with the EU are in place.
Government looking to penalise UK pensioners in Europe.
Does "beyond that" mean "beyond the current financial year"?
In which case, isn't the answer simply "Not unless other EU countries reciprocate"?
Why does it need to be reciprocal?
It seems that reciprocal agreements make it legally binding:
The policy on the up-rating of UK State Pensions paid to recipients living outside the UK is clear and is a long-standing one of successive Governments since WW2. The annual index-linked increases are paid to UK State Pension recipients where there is a legal requirement to do so. For example, where UK State Pension recipients are living within the European Economic Area, Switzerland and Gibraltar or in countries where there is a reciprocal agreement in place that provides for the uprating of the UK State Pension. The Government has no plans to change this policy. (HoC answer 10/4/19)
Extending uprating unilaterally could give UK pensioners in countries where it does not apply (e.g. Australia) reason to appeal for similar treatment - and this could cost an extra £600 million and rising each year.
Luckily we Brits in the US are covered by a reciprocal agreement and get annual uprating.
"Video has emerged of a woman appearing to shout homophobic abuse at people on a Pride march.
Wearing a black niqab, she can be heard in the footage posted on social media repeatedly shouting "shame on you" at the crowd, including at a man draped in a rainbow LGBT flag.
She can be heard saying: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Shame on you, shame on all of you.""
"Video has emerged of a woman appearing to shout homophobic abuse at people on a Pride march.
Wearing a black niqab, she can be heard in the footage posted on social media repeatedly shouting "shame on you" at the crowd, including at a man draped in a rainbow LGBT flag.
She can be heard saying: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Shame on you, shame on all of you.""
An American born-again Christian in a niqab? Strange.
You do realise that Adam exists in muslim theology as well?
You think Muslims call his wife Eve????
Apparently she is known in Arabic as "Hawwa" which is clearly cognate with the Hebrew "Hawwah" from which we get "Eve" via Greek "Heua" and Latin "Eva". She is not mentioned by name in the Koran though, according to Wikipedia, only in a Hadith (a saying of the prophet, recorded after his death).
Of course it's cognate with Eve - it refers to the same person. It's not Eve, though.
Right... So when a muslim refers to "God", they don't mean Allah?
Sorry, we're talking about whether "Eve" is the same name as "Hawa" or "Hawwa." It isn't the same name. It's cognate.
No, we were talking about whether or not the protestor was muslim. You seem to think that she was a christian because she used the English form of the name of the first woman in the Abrahamic mythos.
Not just because she used the English form of the name, but also because she used a slogan coined by the American evangelical movement.
The Slackbladder observed that Adam existed in Muslim tradition too, and I pointed out that Eve didn't.
Except that she does, albeit not named as such in the Koran (which does refer to a female companion to Adam). Or by your argument, "Eve" only exists in English-language Christian traditions, and any other language where the first woman in the Abrahamic tradition happens to be named "Eve".
"Video has emerged of a woman appearing to shout homophobic abuse at people on a Pride march.
Wearing a black niqab, she can be heard in the footage posted on social media repeatedly shouting "shame on you" at the crowd, including at a man draped in a rainbow LGBT flag.
She can be heard saying: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Shame on you, shame on all of you.""
An American born-again Christian in a niqab? Strange.
On a slightly more serious note, the Metro quotes a police spokesman as saying: "Abusing someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is a hate crime."
Is that true? I didn't think we'd quite got to that stage.
Yes, if it is done in public. It then becomes a breach of the Public Order Act.
Strangely I looked at precisely that page before I posted. It appears to say that abuse can be a "hate incident," but doesn't list it as a "hate crime."
Edit: It says the Public Order Act outlaws "causing harassment, alarm or distress."
What was done would constitute harassment.
Obviously that would be for a court to decide. The point is that abuse isn't illegal. Causing harassment, alarm or distress is illegal.
No, abuse is a form of harassment. So I'm not quite sure why you are dodging round this point.
I'm not "dodging around" it. I'm asking a question about it.
As I said, the website you linked to classified "abuse" as an incident and "harassment" as a crime, which obviously suggests abuse isn't a form of harassment! But maybe that's wrong.
Do you have a better authority for saying abuse is harassment?
"Video has emerged of a woman appearing to shout homophobic abuse at people on a Pride march.
Wearing a black niqab, she can be heard in the footage posted on social media repeatedly shouting "shame on you" at the crowd, including at a man draped in a rainbow LGBT flag.
She can be heard saying: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Shame on you, shame on all of you.""
An American born-again Christian in a niqab? Strange.
On a slightly more serious note, the Metro quotes a police spokesman as saying: "Abusing someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity is a hate crime."
Is that true? I didn't think we'd quite got to that stage.
Yes, if it is done in public. It then becomes a breach of the Public Order Act.
Strangely I looked at precisely that page before I posted. It appears to say that abuse can be a "hate incident," but doesn't list it as a "hate crime."
Edit: It says the Public Order Act outlaws "causing harassment, alarm or distress."
What was done would constitute harassment.
Obviously that would be for a court to decide. The point is that abuse isn't illegal. Causing harassment, alarm or distress is illegal.
No, abuse is a form of harassment. So I'm not quite sure why you are dodging round this point.
I'm not "dodging around" it. I'm asking a question about it.
As I said, the website you linked to classified "abuse" as an incident and "harassment" as a crime, which obviously suggests abuse isn't a form of harassment! But maybe that's wrong.
Do you have a better authority for saying abuse is harassment?
Using threatening, abusive or insulting language is an offence if it is is done within the hearing of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. Or with the intention of causing it. Or with the intention of making someone think violence is going to be used against them or of provoking a violent response.
"Video has emerged of a woman appearing to shout homophobic abuse at people on a Pride march.
Wearing a black niqab, she can be heard in the footage posted on social media repeatedly shouting "shame on you" at the crowd, including at a man draped in a rainbow LGBT flag.
She can be heard saying: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Shame on you, shame on all of you.""
An American born-again Christian in a niqab? Strange.
You do realise that Adam exists in muslim theology as well?
You think Muslims call his wife Eve????
Apparently she is known in Arabic as "Hawwa" which is clearly cognate with the Hebrew "Hawwah" from which we get "Eve" via Greek "Heua" and Latin "Eva". She is not mentioned by name in the Koran though, according to Wikipedia, only in a Hadith (a saying of the prophet, recorded after his death).
Of course it's cognate with Eve - it refers to the same person. It's not Eve, though.
Right... So when a muslim refers to "God", they don't mean Allah?
Sorry, we're talking about whether "Eve" is the same name as "Hawa" or "Hawwa." It isn't the same name. It's cognate.
No, we were talking about whether or not the protestor was muslim. You seem to think that she was a christian because she used the English form of the name of the first woman in the Abrahamic mythos.
Not just because she used the English form of the name, but also because she used a slogan coined by the American evangelical movement.
The Slackbladder observed that Adam existed in Muslim tradition too, and I pointed out that Eve didn't.
Except that she does, albeit not named as such in the Koran (which does refer to a female companion to Adam). Or by your argument, "Eve" only exists in English-language Christian traditions, and any other language where the first woman in the Abrahamic tradition happens to be named "Eve".
I'm talking about the name "Eve," not the person. Sorry if you didn't get that from the previous discussion. Do let me know if you want to go through it a few more times.
Just back from a cruise in the Baltic including Hamburg, Copenhagen, Visby, Tallinn, St Petersburg, Kiel, and Gothenburg ( and no patriotic boozing.) What was impressive was how well kept were the streets and friendly the locals(even the Russians). We are just about to throw all that under the Boris bus.
We had members of our Scots family on that cruise
My wife and I did that cruise some years ago. Tallinn is delightful and it was our second visit to St Petersburg but it is an extraordinary city to explore at anytime
I had three Scots on my table. One was a former senior civil servant. His views on Boris were unrepeatable.
Just back from a cruise in the Baltic including Hamburg, Copenhagen, Visby, Tallinn, St Petersburg, Kiel, and Gothenburg ( and no patriotic boozing.) What was impressive was how well kept were the streets and friendly the locals(even the Russians). We are just about to throw all that under the Boris bus.
We had members of our Scots family on that cruise
My wife and I did that cruise some years ago. Tallinn is delightful and it was our second visit to St Petersburg but it is an extraordinary city to explore at anytime
I had three Scots on my table. One was a former senior civil servant. His views on Boris were unrepeatable.
That would be hideous as neither Con+DUP nor Lab+LD+SNP could reach a majority.
The Tories + DUP would be one short of a majority, (assuming Sinn Fein continue not to take their seats). But I assume Lady Sylvia Hermon wouldn't vote in favour of putting Corbyn in Downing Street.
Just back from a cruise in the Baltic including Hamburg, Copenhagen, Visby, Tallinn, St Petersburg, Kiel, and Gothenburg ( and no patriotic boozing.) What was impressive was how well kept were the streets and friendly the locals(even the Russians). We are just about to throw all that under the Boris bus.
We had members of our Scots family on that cruise
My wife and I did that cruise some years ago. Tallinn is delightful and it was our second visit to St Petersburg but it is an extraordinary city to explore at anytime
I had three Scots on my table. One was a former senior civil servant. His views on Boris were unrepeatable.
My mother, sister and niece did that cruise in May. I managed to join them for a day in Copenhagen. They loved it. Hears a lot of positive things about all the destinations, especially Riga and Tallinn.
Support for labour is the lowest ever recorded in a Welsh poll
I prefer the Scottish reaction on the BBC news at 6pm.
I am sure you do but labour has already lost Scotland and looks like we have a chance of seeing them off in Wales and I do not mind which party or coalition of parties does it
They have been in power far too long and their leader is a pale imitation of Corbyn, who labour should hold responsible for not coming out for remain from day 1 and avoiding the present chaos
Comments
The Slackbladder observed that Adam existed in Muslim tradition too, and I pointed out that Eve didn't.
Three wasted years. Those the words you were thinking of?
Con 311
Lab 224
LD 43
Green 1
SNP 50
PC 3
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
As I said, the website you linked to classified "abuse" as an incident and "harassment" as a crime, which obviously suggests abuse isn't a form of harassment! But maybe that's wrong.
Do you have a better authority for saying abuse is harassment?
Italy has not sorted out its banking sector. Simply, local savings banks were too politically powerful, and lending to prominent local businessmen was too important. The result is that the Italian banking system is in worse state now than in 2010. The numbers involved are not as overwhelming as they were for Ireland and Spain in the Eurozone crisis - but they are very significant considering the Italian government is not without its own problems.
The other problem Italy has is that if Salvini rocks the boat too much, then wealthy Italians will pull the last of their Euros out of local banks, raising their funding costs and screwing the local economy. (Why risk your assets become Lira 2000, when they could be German Euros?) We see this in Target-2 numbers alreadys.
'A poll has shown Boris is booming in Wales'
Support for labour is the lowest ever recorded in a Welsh poll
none 6/4
1-50 6/4
51-100 8/1
over 100 4/1
(Shadsy)
https://www.cps.gov.uk/verbal-abuse-and-harassment-public
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jun/16/verbal-abuse-law
Using threatening, abusive or insulting language is an offence if it is is done within the hearing of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. Or with the intention of causing it. Or with the intention of making someone think violence is going to be used against them or of provoking a violent response.
SNP 50 seats (+15)
Lib Dems 5 seats (+1)
Con 3 seats (-10)
Lab 1 seat (-6)
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/area_scot.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-49151523
They have been in power far too long and their leader is a pale imitation of Corbyn, who labour should hold responsible for not coming out for remain from day 1 and avoiding the present chaos
Showbiz is politics for the empty-headed